David Dingwall

[Canada Post, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member will accept the word of anyone when it comes to verifying the facts about a particular matter.

I want the record to show that the incident he refers to took place as a result of representations made by a member of Parliament to me as the minister responsible for Canada Post. The House should know that I have received in excess of 1,500 representations up until this time from members of Parliament on a variety of aspects concerning Canada Post. It is my duty and my responsibility to refer that subject matter to the appropriate authorities, which I did in that particular case.

The hon. member can stand in his place and question that an international organization such as the accounting company in question has reported all of the facts.

[Canada Post, September 20th, 1995]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Pensions, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is a very articulate individual. I would have thought that he would have had the courtesy of respecting the privacy rights of Canadians all across this country.

I do not find anything fundamentally wrong with having the matter adjudicated by the courts. When a decision is made in due course the government will then be in a position to release it to the hon. member.

[Pensions, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a very legitimate question. The unfortunate part is that while the information commissioner suggests that we release this information, the privacy commissioner informs me that we should not.

The matter is presently under active consideration and is in the courts. There are some real competing issues on both sides.

I have to respect the law and, more important, the intent of the law.

[Canada Post, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the issue should be very clear to the hon. member.

An RCMP investigation is under way. Proceedings before the bankruptcy court are taking place. For any minister of the crown, including the Prime Minister, to take any other kind of action would be inappropriate.

I suggest to the hon. member that he wait for the appropriate time when all of the proceedings are concluded. Thereafter decisions will be made.

[Canada Post, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has raised this question on a previous occasion.

It would be inappropriate for the government to do anything because an RCMP investigation is presently under way. Proceedings are taking place under the Bankruptcy Act. This question was put to the president of the Canada Post Corporation when he appeared before the standing committee.

I understand the hon. member's desire to make further accusations against the individuals involved but it would be highly inappropriate for us to take action until those proceedings come to a full and complete ending. Thereafter decisions can be made.

[Helicopter Purchase, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your wishes but I believe the question is somewhat hypothetical in view of the fact that cabinet has not made any decision with regard to the procurement of the items in question.

With regard to the specific company he raises, it should be noted that there are two separate entities at play here. Cabinet has not made the decision in terms of what it will do. When cabinet makes the decision I am sure the hon. member will be well informed. He will then have an opportunity to ask questions of myself as well as of the Minister of National Defence.

[Helicopter Purchase, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that cabinet is seized with the subject matter to which he refers. No decisions have been made with regard to that subject matter.

With regard to compensation, no compensation is being paid. I have stated this repeatedly in the House and outside the House. What is being done at the present time is the termination costs which have to be arrived at pursuant to the contract which was duly consummated by the previous administration. That has to be followed and will be followed.

[Social Housing, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will know each department and each agency of the Government of Canada has had to undergo an extensive review of its programs. Canada Mortgage and Housing has been no exception.

The hon. member will know the Government of Canada provides on an annual basis $2 billion for approximately 140,000 units across the country. Furthermore, the government was able to provide $100 million under the auspices of RRAP. There have been a number of other initiatives too long to mention.

Perhaps I could conclude with a final one. Under the auspices of the private-public partnership centre of Canada Mortgage and Housing and the private sector, 49 projects creating over 2,500 units in the country have been put in place.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 31st, 1995]

Public Works and Government Services Canada is continuously looking at ways of improving service delivery and reducing the costs of cheque production and distribution, from the consolidation of cheque processing sites from 11 to 4, which will save $4.8 million annually after implementation, to increased use of direct deposit.

Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC, issues payments on behalf of other program departments in the amounts and according to the schedules determined by those departments. Program departments determine individual entitlement to benefits in accordance with the policy and legislation governing specific programs. This process precludes PWGSC from adding up the benefits under various programs and issuing a single payment to an individual.

Should the department decide to consolidate various benefits paid monthly into a single payment, individual program departments would require legislative and policy changes for their specific programs. Major changes would also be required to the computer systems of program departments and PWGSC.

Public Works and Government Services Canada issues approximately 193 million payments annually. Approximately 34 per cent are currently delivered electronically in the form of direct deposit.

The average cost to issue a cheque, including production costs, banking fees and postage, is approximately one dollar. With the use of direct deposit significant savings are realized through reduced postage and banking fees as well as reduced cheque production costs. Direct deposit costs the government only one cent in banking fees compared with 10 cents for each paper transaction.

As another important step to streamline operations and reduce costs, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services recently announced that direct deposit will become the government's standard method of payment. This expansion of the use of direct deposit is expected to save the government $18 million to $20 million annually by 1998-1999.

Program departments accord benefits in accordance with their legislation. In cases where individuals are entitled to payments based on individual characteristics separate payments must be issued as there is no authority to treat a married couple as a single beneficiary.